LITPro Data For Baggett's Launch At Daytona

Interesting read and thanks for sharing.

Like many motorsports that base lap times on line selection, throttle control, and braking points; technology like Lit Pro, while neat, takes away the guess work and rider awareness.

IMHO items like litpro, launch control, traction control, and suspension data collection should be illegal. When a rider can go wide open down a polished front straight with no regard or consequence, that’s when the sport will die, much like Moto America has since the introduction for the aforementioned technologies. It’s not raw, it’s just who’s got the biggest balls that night, and when it goes bad, it goes really bad.

Premix wrote:

Like many motorsports that base lap times on line selection, throttle control, and braking points; technology like Lit Pro, while neat, takes away the guess work and rider awareness.

IMHO items like litpro, launch control, traction control, and suspension data collection should be illegal. When a rider can go wide open down a polished front straight with no regard or consequence, that’s when the sport will die, much like Moto America has since the introduction for the aforementioned technologies. It’s not raw, it’s just who’s got the biggest balls that night, and when it goes bad, it goes really bad.

You make a good point but I disagree. Also, in some cases this info makes the course safer. There was a section on the track where Marv was sending on press day as a 3 x 3, when reviewing the lit pro data it was actually faster to 2 x 2 x 2 (and safer). At the end of the day, LitPro isn't going to take a 10th place guy to first it's just another coaching tool and helps the riders better dissect the tracks and find ways to improve their technique. If you can't properly execute it doesn't help you at all, I don't think it's taking the piss out the racing, anything that elevates riders is going to equate to better and safer racing.

Thanks for sharing. I feel like this data is completely useless without the real question getting answered, who jumped further, Baggett or Tomac?

RonJon wrote:

You make a good point but I disagree. Also, in some cases this info makes the course safer. There was a section on the track where Marv was sending on press day as a 3 x 3, when reviewing the lit pro data it was actually faster to 2 x 2 x 2 (and safer). At the end of the day, LitPro isn't going to take a 10th place guy to first it's just another coaching tool and helps the riders better dissect the tracks and find ways to improve their technique. If you can't properly execute it doesn't help you at all, I don't think it's taking the piss out the racing, anything that elevates riders is going to equate to better and safer racing.

I agree whole heartedly that the technology isn’t going to take an Alex Ray and turn him into a Tomac, that was proven last year at the nationals. As far elevating the sport, sure, one could argue that, but what it has done without a shadow of a doubt done is increase the cost to every team in the pits. The product, the software, staffing someone or subletting to someone else on a raceday to tune it. Those that don’t have access or the funding to put these items to use, get left behind, and it is very obvious from about 14-15 on back.

I’d be curious, how many of the teams use all of this technology? What’s the cost to run it for a season? Does HEP run the same stuff as JGR? How about Honda and Motoconcepts?

Maybe Cocksey can use this as his next tabloid headline “Eccentric Electronics Shock Supercross”

Premix wrote:

Like many motorsports that base lap times on line selection, throttle control, and braking points; technology like Lit Pro, while neat, takes away the guess work and rider awareness.

IMHO items like litpro, launch control, traction control, and suspension data collection should be illegal. When a rider can go wide open down a polished front straight with no regard or consequence, that’s when the sport will die, much like Moto America has since the introduction for the aforementioned technologies. It’s not raw, it’s just who’s got the biggest balls that night, and when it goes bad, it goes really bad.

RonJon wrote:

You make a good point but I disagree. Also, in some cases this info makes the course safer. There was a section on the track where Marv was sending on press day as a 3 x 3, when reviewing the lit pro data it was actually faster to 2 x 2 x 2 (and safer). At the end of the day, LitPro isn't going to take a 10th place guy to first it's just another coaching tool and helps the riders better dissect the tracks and find ways to improve their technique. If you can't properly execute it doesn't help you at all, I don't think it's taking the piss out the racing, anything that elevates riders is going to equate to better and safer racing.

Premix wrote:

I agree whole heartedly that the technology isn’t going to take an Alex Ray and turn him into a Tomac, that was proven last year at the nationals. As far elevating the sport, sure, one could argue that, but what it has done without a shadow of a doubt done is increase the cost to every team in the pits. The product, the software, staffing someone or subletting to someone else on a raceday to tune it. Those that don’t have access or the funding to put these items to use, get left behind, and it is very obvious from about 14-15 on back.

I’d be curious, how many of the teams use all of this technology? What’s the cost to run it for a season? Does HEP run the same stuff as JGR? How about Honda and Motoconcepts?

Maybe Cocksey can use this as his next tabloid headline “Eccentric Electronics Shock Supercross”

All the guys are using basically the same setup as far as hardware. There are a lot of guys outside the top 20 using it too. You can get the basic set up for around 500 bucks. There are some guys data sharing as well, not necessarily in the same class but someone like a Scott Champion can see where a Forkner or Sexton is making time on a line. I would equate it to a step up from taping a session with a camera.

Rather than speculate on whether it was faster overall why didn’t they confirm/deny that using their data? Surely they could have checked times for the long rhythm lane that followed the wall jump when it was jumped vs when it wasn’t to get a clearer picture.

Great idea for an article though. Thanks!

This is a perfect example of how Motocross defies traditional logic about laptimes. Note that the riders who did not jump "made up" for the loss of time by achieving greater speed somewhere else, yet Blake had already passed them. In Motocross, track position and timing often win out over lap times and LitPro data, even if only for a lap or two.

Falcon wrote:

This is a perfect example of how Motocross defies traditional logic about laptimes. Note that the riders who did not jump "made up" for the loss of time by achieving greater speed somewhere else, yet Blake had already passed them. In Motocross, track position and timing often win out over lap times and LitPro data, even if only for a lap or two.

Yup. Being faster earlier in a section is far more important than veing faster later, even if the times are the same.